DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 28-38, in the reply filed on July 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 39-47 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 13, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 28 and 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0134657 to Schmidt et al.
As to claim 28, Schmidt discloses a system capable of removing resin from 3D printed objects comprising: a housing (see Schmidt Fig. 5 disclosing a unlabeled housing; paragraph [0065]); a fixture located in the housing and adapted for attaching thereto on a bottom side thereof a build tray, wherein the build tray is a component of a 3D printer upon which the 3D printed objects are manufactured, wherein the build tray is removable from the 3D printer with built 3D printed objects located thereupon (see Schmidt Figs. 4 and 5 and paragraph [0062] disclosing a removable build tray 3 that can be attached to fixtures 10-12 to attach to transport device 9); and a lift mechanism located in the housing and connected to the fixture, wherein said lift mechanism is adapted for moving the fixture from an upper position to a lower position; wherein when the lift mechanism is in the lower position, the built 3D printed objects located on the build tray attached to the lift mechanism are immersed into a liquid formulation contained in a container positioned below the lift mechanism to thereby remove resin from the built 3D printed objects (see Schmidt Fig. 5 and paragraph [0066] disclosing lift mechanism 9, 27 to move fixture 12 up and down to submerge tray into tanks 24 and/or 25).
As to claim 36, Schmidt discloses that the system can further comprise a UV light array located in the housing wherein when the lift mechanism is in the lower position, the built 3D printed objects located on the build tray attached to the lift mechanism can be exposed to UV light from the UV light array to thereby cure the built 3D printed objects (see Schmidt paragraphs [0065]-[0067]).
As to claim 37, Schmidt discloses that the container can include a baffle located between an inside wall of the container and the build tray when the build tray is immersed in the liquid formulation (see Schmidt Fig. 11 disclosing that the container 79 can include an inner wall within the outer wall at 84; paragraphs [0066], [0078]).
As to claim 38, Schmidt discloses that the system can include an impeller located in the liquid formulation in the container when the build tray is immersed in the liquid formulation (see Schmidt Figs. 10 and 11, ref.#76 or 86; paragraphs [0077]-[0078]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0134657 to Schmidt et al. as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0291347 to Price et al.
Schmidt is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 28.
As to claims 29 and 30, while Schmidt discloses that the lift mechanism is able to move up and down within a container (thus capable of imparting motion to the build tray) (see Schmidt paragraphs [0065]-[0066]), to the extent that it could be argued that the lift mechanism is not also an agitation mechanism, Price discloses a similar system wherein an agitation mechanism is located in the housing and adapted to impart motion to the build tray when the build tray is in the liquid formulation wherein the motion can be rotation of the build tray about a vertical axis or shaking (read as oscillating) the build tray in the liquid formulation (see Price Fig. 6 and paragraph [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Schmidt to include the agitation mechanism as disclosed by Price in order to improve the cleaning of the build part.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0134657 to Schmidt et al. as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0202126 to Hutchinson et al.
Schmidt is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 28.
As to claim 31, Schmidt does not explicitly disclose that the container comprises a 5 gallon bucket. Hutchinson discloses that use of 5 gallon buckets to store solution is known in the art (see Hutchinson paragraph [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a 5-gallon bucket as the container and the results would have been obvious (see Hutchinson paragraph [0061]; see also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and (B) where changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0134657 to Schmidt et al. as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0375158 to Crabtree et al.
Schmidt is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 28.
As to claim 32, Schmidt does not explicitly disclose that the container is a same container in which the liquid formulation was transported. Crabtree discloses that it is known in the art to use the same container in which the liquid formulation was transported (see Crabtree paragraphs [0133], [0158]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the container be the same container in which the liquid formulation was transported as disclosed by Crabtree in order to have quick and easy replacement of the solvent (see Crabtree paragraph [0133]).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0134657 to Schmidt et al. as applied to claim 28 above.
Schmidt is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 28.
As to claim 33, while Schmidt does not explicitly disclose that the fixture is adapted for attaching up to three build trays, Schmidt discloses that the fixture is adapted for attaching build trays (see Schmidt paragraph [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the fixture could be configured for attaching up to three build trays since Schmidt discloses the transport device can transport several different carriers (see Schmidt paragraph [0029]; see also MPEP2144.04(IV)(A) where changes in size are prima facie obvious and MPEP2144.04(VI)(B) where duplication of parts is prima facie obvious).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0134657 to Schmidt et al. as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0224917 to Venkatakrishnan et al. and/or U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0415238 to Sweeney.
Schmidt is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 28.
As to claim 34, Schmidt does not explicitly disclose that the fixture is adapted for attaching thereto the build tray magnetically. Venkatakrishnan and/or Sweeney disclose that it is known in the art to secure a build tray to a holder magnetically (see Venkatakrishnan paragraphs [0018], [0037]; Sweeney paragraph [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the fixture be adapted for attaching thereto the build tray magnetically and the results would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143(I)(B) where simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another is prima facie obvious).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0134657 to Schmidt et al. as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,114,943 to Fong et al.
Schmidt is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 28.
As to claim 35, Schmidt does not explicitly disclose a pedestal upon which the housing is located. Fong discloses that use of pedestals for supporting a housing are known in the art and does not provide patentable significance (see Fong Fig. 2, ref.#26, 28; col. 4, lines 14-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a pedestal upon which the housing is located as disclosed by Fong in order to support the housing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
